Spiking food prices have made headlines around the world this year, from eggs in the US to vegetables in India.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index has been slowly increasing over the past six months following declines over much of 2023.
For example, the price of orange juice concentrate in the US was 42% higher in April than it was a year ago, while the price of fresh orange juice in the UK has risen 25% over the last year.
In Greece, the price of olive oil rose by nearly 30% over 2023 and by more than 63% in April of this year.
No single factor alone can explain the rising prices.
But geopolitical conflict, extreme weather events, high input costs and increased demand are all playing a role.
The FAO’s recent Food Outlook report finds that, despite positive forecasts, “global food production systems remain vulnerable to shocks stemming from extreme weather events, geopolitical tensions, policy changes and developments in other markets”.
Carbon Brief has asked a range of scientists and policy experts from around the world what they think are the biggest factors driving spiking global food prices.
These are their responses, first as sample quotes, then, below, in full:
- Prof Elizabeth Robinson: “Whilst one can argue that food crises are not primarily caused by climate or weather, often food price spikes are due to a combination of weather and non-weather related factors.”
- Levi Sucre: “The overexploitation of agricultural lands and the intensive use of agrochemicals have led to a growing need for fertilisers to maintain production, which further increases production costs.”
- Dr Álvaro Lario: “Most food commodity markets present a stable outlook for 2024-25, which should help contain prices for consumers. However…many factors can tip the delicate demand-supply balance.”
- Siraj Hussain: “For long-term and stable food security, the yield has to go up and food losses have to come down.”
- Prof Andrew Challinor: “Put plainly, climate change is beginning to outpace us because it is interacting with our complex interrelated economic and food systems.”
- Dr Rob Vos: “Food prices in global markets are most sensitive to weather conditions and supply disruptions in major producing countries.”
- Prof Alan Matthews: “The rapid recovery of consumer demand following the disruptions caused by the measures to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and tight global markets all contributed.”
- Xiomara Paredes: “In short, every time a new regulation is created, it increases production costs, makes market access difficult and thus makes food products more expensive.”
- Dr Manuel Otero: “Food prices have experienced significant increases due to various interrelated economic, social, environmental and political causes.”
- Dr Shouro Dasgupta: “Conflicts are one of the main reasons behind price shocks…Many of these events have also disrupted supply chains and infrastructure.”
Prof Elizabeth Robinson
Director, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Back in 2008, broad underinvestment in the agriculture sector, increasing demand for biofuels, changing diets and speculation – encouraged by declining global food stocks – were already putting longer-term upward pressure on food prices.
The 2008 food crisis was triggered by sequential poor wheat harvests in Australia, a breadbasket country. However, the extreme spike in wheat and rice prices was driven by a combination of export restrictions, panic buying and increased speculation, which amplified the short-term harvest shocks and the longer-term pressures.
More recently, the changing climate, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have disrupted food production and globally integrated food supply chains, putting rapid upwards pressure on food prices. Whilst one can argue that food crises are not primarily caused by climate or weather, often food price spikes are due to a combination of weather and non-weather related factors.
Earlier this year cocoa prices rapidly increased, a consequence of extreme weather conditions, linked in part to El Niño, resulting in multiple poor harvest seasons in west Africa, combined with longer-term pressures, including disease and ageing cocoa trees, and short-term pressures, particularly speculation, exacerbating the situation further.
Given the changing climate, and in particular increasing extremes of heat and precipitation, food price spikes are likely to be an increasingly common feature of our highly integrated global food systems, in which shocks in one part of the world can relatively easily be amplified and transmitted around the globe.
Levi Sucre
Coordinator
Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests
There are several factors causing the increase in food prices worldwide.
Firstly, the high dependency on oil, whose price keeps rising, drives up the costs of food production and transportation. Agricultural machinery, fertilisers and product transportation rely heavily on oil, so any increase in its price directly affects the final cost of food.
Additionally, the overexploitation of agricultural lands and the intensive use of agrochemicals have led to a growing need for fertilisers to maintain production, which further increases production costs.
Monocultures are also degrading the soil, reducing its capacity to produce food sustainably. The lack of crop rotation depletes soil nutrients, diminishing its fertility and forcing farmers to use more fertilisers and pesticides. This not only increases costs but also has negative effects on the environment and health.
The effects of climate change are impacting agricultural production; for example, rising temperatures are disrupting previously predictable agricultural seasons, making crop production more difficult. High temperatures in Mesoamerica continue to destroy crops and reduce food reserves, worsening shortages and driving up prices, affecting nearly 8 million people in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
Furthermore, economic injustice, inequality and lack of equity exacerbate the situation. The people with the least resources are the most affected by rising food prices, putting their food security at risk. On the other hand, small-scale producers, who do not use harmful soil practices, do not receive the necessary support to increase their production. These farmers cannot compete with large companies that dominate the market with their monocultures.
Dr Álvaro Lario
President
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International food prices have declined since their historic peak after the start of the war in Ukraine. According to the recently released biennial FAO Food Outlook, most food commodity markets present a stable outlook for 2024-25, which should help contain prices for consumers. But as the report reminds us, many factors can tip the delicate demand-supply balance, impacting food prices and global food security.
The drop in global food prices does not automatically mean that prices have decreased in real terms in local markets, especially considering the strong depreciation of local currencies in most low- and middle-income countries against a robust US dollar.
This is also true for rural communities in these countries, where 80% of the world’s poorest live. In these areas, people can spend up to 70% of their income on food, leaving them with no capacity to absorb any price hikes and pushing them into poverty and hunger. Since Covid-19 emerged, we have seen multiple crises, such as climate change, conflict and record-high food prices, have compounded to push 122 million more people into hunger.
And, despite the current trend, we must remember how fragile our food systems are. They are increasingly threatened by more frequent and intense weather extremes, and volatile geopolitics. Our food systems are overly concentrated on a few crops, countries and producers, and are inefficient, with significant food losses along the value chain and high levels of food waste at the consumer level.
Siraj Hussain
India’s former agricultural secretary. Trustee.
World Food Programme Trust for India
Food inflation has been a source of major concern for a vast majority of Indians.
It is quite an enigma that even cereals, in which India is surplus, have seen double-digit inflation in the last year. Despite the erratic monsoon in 2023, India produced 137m tonnes of rice. Yet in every month since April 2023, the consumer price index inflation for rice was 11-13%.
In the case of wheat, inflation was more than 12% from April to July 2023. The Indian government released 10m tonnes of wheat under an open market sales scheme to cool down wheat prices and the intervention was quite successful as inflation has come down to about 3-7% since July 2023.
The reasons behind inflation in basic cereals of wheat and rice are not well understood. Despite low monsoon rains in 2023-24 due to El Niño, the production of both was not too low in 2023-24. As per the Indian government, wheat production was 113m tonnes.
The real concern in the basket of food inflation comes from vegetables, where inflation in the last year has reached more than 25%. This is attributed to losses in the supply chain from harvesting to marketing. India’s food surpluses are quite small except for rice and sugar. For long-term and stable food security, the yield has to go up and food losses have to come down.
Prof Andy Challinor
Professor of Climate Impacts.
University of Leeds
Every five years, the UK is mandated to report on climate change risks. The scientific evidence for the second of these reports was published in 2017. It highlighted risks from weather-related shocks to international food production and trade as a key risk.
The final report, which is the responsibility of the government, not scientists, endorsed all the conclusions of the evidence report “with the exception of some of those on food security”. The reason? It said: “The government takes a more optimistic view of the levels of resilience that are achieved through functioning markets and diverse sources of supply.”
In the same month that the government response was written, reports of a UK courgette deficit, resulting from climate extremes abroad, soon deepened into wider concerns across a range of vegetables and rationing was commonplace across supermarkets. The World Economic Forum’s 2017 report on global risks identified extreme weather events – already ranked as the most likely global risk in every WEF report since 2014 – as both the most likely and most impactful risk, after weapons of mass destruction.
Skip forward to 2022, when the evidence for the new UK assessment was published. Amongst other additions, an increased underlying vulnerability to climate risk was identified along with a new specific risk of “risk amplification from the interactions and cascades of named risks across systems and geographies”.
The way we as a society (consumers, citizens, government, businesses) choose to set up our food systems has huge implications for stability and resilience – or lack thereof. The 2022 report makes clear that the UK is struggling to keep pace with climate change impacts because of both the pace of change and the way in which the many potential risks to food systems interact with each other.
Put plainly, climate change is beginning to outpace us because it is interacting with our complex interrelated economic and food systems. Until we find ourselves able to look at the big picture and adjust accordingly, we can expect more of the same.
Dr Rob Vos
Director for Markets, Trade and Institutions.
International Food Policy Research Institute
The war in Ukraine caused world market prices for staple foods, especially wheat and vegetable oils, to skyrocket in the first half of 2022. Since then, however, those world market prices have come down to pre-war levels.
At the same time, consumers around the world have felt soaring domestic food price inflation well into 2023. People in some low- and middle-income countries, such as in Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gaza, Haiti, Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela, are still seeing the cost of their daily bread and meals going up at high rates today.
What is driving these price fluctuations in global food markets and why are consumer prices not following the same pattern?
Food prices in global markets are most sensitive to weather conditions and supply disruptions in major producing countries. For instance, floods in India caused by the El Niño phenomenon disrupted rice production in India during 2023, pushing up rice prices worldwide.
The war in Ukraine caused shortages in global wheat, maize, sunflower seeds and fertiliser supplies as both Russia and Ukraine are major producers, pushing up wheat, vegetable oil and fertiliser prices.
I should add that the Ukraine war was not the only factor and, in fact, just exacerbated the surge in international food and fertiliser prices induced by the global economic recovery from the Covid-19 recession and the supply chain disruptions (recall the containership pile-up at harbours) that sent oil prices and shipping costs soaring and increasing the cost of farming and food trade worldwide.
Global market prices are further sensitive to misguided policy responses. Governments often respond to expected food supply shortages and price surges by imposing restrictions on exports (such as India’s bans on rice exports in 2023) or lowering import restrictions (as many rice-importing countries did in 2023). While trying to protect their consumers, these “insulation” measures end up just magnifying the price increase.
Why do domestic food prices not necessarily follow the same pattern?
In fact, most countries are relatively insulated from global price shocks as they rely predominantly on their own food production to feed their populations; typically, only 10-15% or less of food consumption is imported.
Domestic conditions for food production and distribution systems thus matter more than global prices. These conditions vary across countries, but countries with the highest rates of consumer price inflation have seen food systems disrupted by intensified conflict (as in Ethiopia, Gaza, Haiti and Sudan, for instance) and those suffering macroeconomic constraints and weak currencies that have kept both general and food price inflation high (e.g. Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, and many highly indebted low-income countries).
Prof Alan Matthews
Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy
University of Dublin Trinity College
Food prices in the EU rose dramatically in 2022 and 2023. EU food prices were 41% higher in May 2023 relative to the price level in 2015, while the overall price level rose by just 26% during this period. The monthly annual rate of food price inflation peaked at 19.2% in the EU in March 2023.
Even higher rates were recorded in central and eastern Europe, with Hungary a particular outlier, with food price inflation of 46% in February 2023. Since then, food prices have not fallen, but are now increasing at a rate below the general inflation rate for the first time in two years.
There have been multiple drivers of this food price inflation. The rapid recovery of consumer demand following the disruptions caused by the measures to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and tight global markets all contributed.
For Europe, the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been particularly important. There was a direct impact through the increased price of energy, and thus fertilisers and fuel, given the EU’s dependence on imports particularly of Russian gas, but also an indirect impact through the knock-on effect of higher world market crop prices due to the subsequent curtailment of Ukrainian exports to the world market.
Extreme weather events have contributed to food price increases. High temperatures and drought badly affected olive oil production in 2022-23 as well as production of cereals in southern Europe, while heavy rains and wet weather have delayed planting and harvests and damaged fruit quality in northern Europe.
Despite these production losses, a March 2024 study in Communications Earth & Environment estimated that the 2022 extreme summer heat had increased food inflation in Europe by 0.43-0.93 percentage points – so making a relatively minor contribution to the overall 19% increase in food prices at that time. Nonetheless, in more normal times that would cause a more noticeable uptick in food prices, and the authors suggest that the warming projected for 2035 could amplify these numbers by 30-50%.
Xiomara Paredes
Executive Director, Latin American and Caribbean Coordinating Association of Small Fair Trade Producers and Workers
The new regulations that the EU has recently implemented, such as the deforestation-free regulation, changes in organic regulation, human rights and environmental due diligence, entail the investment of additional resources, thus raising production costs.
For example, to comply with the deforestation-free regulation, producers must first invest in geolocation equipment and have technical staff who can survey the points or polygons on the plots of each producer member of the organisation. Geolocating all the producers’ plots also takes time and effort that must be diluted in the installed capacity of the producer organisations.
In short, every time a new regulation is created, it increases production costs, makes market access difficult and thus makes food products more expensive.
Dr Shouro Dasgupta
Environmental Economist
Fondazione CMCC
Visiting Senior Fellow
Grantham Research Institute, LSE
The issue of increasing food prices is multifaceted and is due to a complex set of reasons including conflicts, climate change and supply chain disruptions.
Conflicts are one of the main reasons behind price shocks. For instance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, known as the breadbasket of Europe, has substantially reduced exports of wheat, maize and sunflower, resulting in food price fluctuations. While global food prices have decreased from their peak levels at the onset of the conflict, they remain higher than the pre-conflict levels.
Climate change, manifested by increasing temperatures and the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme events such as heatwaves, droughts and floods, has led to crop failures and reduced yields in many parts of the world. This, in turn, has pushed up food prices through supply shocks.
Many of these events have also disrupted supply chains and infrastructure, such as roads, and lowered water levels of major rivers such as the Rhine. Whether due to conflicts or climate change, several countries have imposed export bans on major agricultural commodities (for example, India, Myanmar and Russia on rice; Thailand on sugar; Argentina on beef). These restrictions affect countries that are highly dependent on imports the most.
Several policy failures in the global food system also contribute to food inflation. One such issue is the inadequacy of storage facilities, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Another is the concentration of food production in certain regions and on selected crops (60% of the plant-based calorie intake is provided by rice, wheat and maize) and the fact that global food chains are dominated by a small number of multinational corporations.
Dr Manuel Otero
Director-general, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
In recent years, food prices have experienced significant increases due to various interrelated economic, social, environmental and political causes. Armed conflicts have disrupted supply chains and food production and distribution, exacerbating shortages and driving up prices. These conflicts have also displaced millions of people, affecting their ability to produce and access food.
Economic shocks, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and its repercussions, plus the slowdown of economies, have reduced consumers’ purchasing power, decreasing incomes and increasing unemployment, which has raised relative demand and prices.
Extreme weather events, such as droughts and storms, have affected agricultural production, reducing supply and increasing production costs, resulting in higher prices for consumers. Volatility in fertiliser markets, driven by trade restrictions and armed conflict, has also increased agricultural production costs, reflected in higher prices for food products.
Trade restrictions, such as export bans, have exacerbated the global food crisis, limiting international food trade and further driving up prices in global markets. According to our Observatory of Public Policies for Agrifood Systems tool, since the pandemic, food inflation has reached 28% annually on a global average – compared to a general inflation of 19% annually.
This is despite the fact that international food prices fell 9% annually for the same comparison period, suggesting that other economic, political and environmental factors contribute to food inflation.
Latin America and the Caribbean is home to 16 net-exporting and 16 net-food-importing countries, so the region has benefited from the increase in international food prices, but has also been one of the most affected by food insecurity due to factors such as increasing poverty.
The post Experts: What is causing food prices to spike around the world? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Experts: What is causing food prices to spike around the world?
An exceptional El Niño is building. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says it has intensified to very strong levels and is likely to last at least through February 2027. If its current trajectory holds, it could become stronger than anything seen since WMO monitoring began four decades ago.
That is bad news for agriculture. El Niño – a naturally occurring weather phenomenon – can scramble rainfall patterns across the world, bringing drought to some regions and floods to others. And this time it is unfolding against the backdrop of a significantly hotter climate, with farmers already contending with unreliable growing seasons, extreme heat and less predictable rainfall because of global warming.
El Niño expected to bring next record-hot year as soon as 2027
We are seeing the consequences already. In Sri Lanka, drought linked to El Niño has dried wells and reservoirs and cut into crops and farmer incomes. Indonesia is experiencing its worst wildfire season in 11 years, with prolonged drought and extreme heat exacerbated by El Niño. And in Peru, authorities are preparing for the opposite extreme: intense rains, flooding and landslides which the national civil-defence agency says could affect around 1.2 million people.
These impacts will multiply as El Niño intensifies.
And yet, just as the risks to food production are rising, the money available to help farmers withstand them is shrinking.
10% funding decline in 2024
A forthcoming analysis from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that climate-related development finance for agrifood systems is moving in the wrong direction. In 2024, the latest year for which data is available, it fell by 10 percent compared with a 2 percent overall decline. The sectors that put food on our tables — crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries — received just 5 percent.
Yet this is precisely the moment when climate investment in agriculture needs to grow, not shrink. It can help communities adapt, build resilience and protect food security, while unlocking larger flows of public and private finance. Agriculture feeds us, supports the livelihoods of well over a billion people, and is often the first sector hit by drought, floods and extreme heat. Cutting that investment now is a false economy.
One failed harvest can plant the seed for the next crisis, forcing farmers to eat the seed they have saved for planting, sell livestock or tools, or take on debt. It can also deepen food insecurity, disrupt supply chains and drive up prices, showing up months later in supermarket aisles far away.
The Central American Dry Corridor, stretching through much of the region, shows both how exposed farmers are, and what investment can do. Based on an analysis of 41 years of satellite observations, FAO finds that some crop and pasture areas there face more than a 50 percent chance of agricultural drought over the coming months.
About half of Central America’s 1.9 million producers of maize, beans and other basic grains live in the Dry Corridor. Many grow food both for sale and for their own families. When a harvest fails, they lose both income and dinner.
El Salvador project conserves water and soil
In El Salvador, which lies within the Dry Corridor, more than 50,000 farmers have adopted practices to better withstand drought and increasingly unreliable rainfall through RECLIMA, a project financed by the Green Climate Fund and implemented by FAO in partnership with the government of El Salvador. It has substantial national co-financing, including from the country’s Environmental Investment Fund.
El Niño can intensify El Salvador’s annual mid-season dry spell, known as the canícula, turning it into a longer, harsher drought just as maize needs water most.
For María Cristina Corvera de López, a second-generation farmer in rural Nahualapa, adapting means changing how every drop of rain is captured and used. She plants trees alongside her crops to provide shade and minimise evaporation and uses simple irrigation channels and a homemade drip system to conserve water. Instead of burning stalks, leaves and husks after harvest, as generations before her did, she turns them into mulch to hold moisture in the soil.
“The effects of climate change are a constant challenge,” she says. But the new techniques have made her farm more resilient to El Niño as well. Where she once harvested about 50 bags of maize per acre, she now gets around 80, even during droughts. It’s enough to feed her family and sell the surplus.
Managing risk now cuts future costs
Together, these adaptations can mean the difference between losing a crop and getting through a dry season with enough food, seed and income to plant again. They are also the result of climate finance invested before disaster strikes.
RECLIMA shows what that kind of adaptation investment can buy. Adaptation accounted for 45 percent of climate-related development finance to agrifood systems in 2024, and multilateral development banks are directing more agricultural finance towards resilience. That shift reflects a growing recognition that adaptation is a form of risk management, not just a development cost.
We need much more of it. The same investments that help farmers withstand El Niño also enable them to adapt to a hotter, more unpredictable future. Cutting investment in the people who produce our food just as climate risks intensify does not save money. It simply pushes a much larger bill into the next harvest, the next food crisis, and the next El Niño.
The post As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers appeared first on Climate Home News.
As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers
An area of Amazon forest roughly the size of the US state of New Jersey has remained standing due to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership of Brazil, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Lula beat Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 election to become president of the nation that is home to nearly 60% of the Amazon rainforest.
Forest loss surged during Bolsonaro’s far-right presidency and dropped sharply under the left-wing Lula, with Amazon deforestation likely to hit its lowest level on record this year.
Now, as another presidential election approaches, Lula is facing off against Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio Bolsonaro, whose “anti-environmental” policies are similar to his father’s.
Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests that at least 20,000 square kilometres (km2) of deforestation has been avoided since Lula took office and prioritised Amazon protection.
The analysis is based on modelling by an international research team of an alternative scenario in which Brazil’s flagship forest code legislation was not enforced – a proxy for Jair Bolsonaro’s leadership.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that this estimate is likely “conservative” and that actual deforestation under Bolsonaro could have been “much higher”.
With Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro tied in the polls, the upcoming election is expected to significantly shape the level of environmental action in the world’s fourth-largest emitter, whose emissions are largely driven by deforestation.
‘Brazil is back’
When Jair Bolsonaro was president of Brazil between 2019 and 2022, he championed the nation’s powerful agribusiness sector and oversaw an unprecedented increase in Amazon deforestation.
Bolsonaro weakened regulations, slashed federal agency budgets and empowered illegal activities in the Amazon, while attacking Indigenous and environmental groups.
This meant that the forest code – Brazil’s flagship legislation that requires landowners to preserve and restore forest on their property – was not properly enforced.
After Lula’s presidential victory in 2022, he promised to target “zero deforestation” by 2030, telling the COP27 UN climate summit that “Brazil is back”.
Lula rolled back Bolsonaro’s wave of deregulation and reinstated a deforestation “action plan”. Led by celebrated environmentalist Marina Silva, the environment ministry scaled up enforcement and policing activities in the Amazon.
As a result, annual deforestation in the Amazon has more than halved from 11,594km2 per year in 2022 to 5,731km2 in 2025.
Data from August 2025 to July 2026 – the timespan used in government records – is yet to be released, but preliminary satellite alerts put the deforestation figure at 2,874km2.
While the final figure is likely to be higher, experts still think Amazon deforestation in 2026 could hit its lowest level since records began in 1988.
New Jersey-sized forest
Compared to a scenario in which Bolsonaro won in 2022, Carbon Brief analysis suggests that at least 20,000km2 of Amazon forest remains standing today due to Lula’s leadership.
This area – roughly the size of Wales, Belize, Slovenia or the US state of New Jersey – is indicated by the grey area in the chart below.
This analysis is based on a 2023 study on the role of nature-based solutions in Brazil’s pathway to net-zero emissions. This was a refined update of a 2018 study that used the same GLOBIOM-Brazil model, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE).
It is based on a comparison of forest code implementation with a “baseline” scenario in which the code is not enforced, reflecting the kind of weak governance seen under the Bolsonaro administration. (See Carbon Brief’s 2022 article for more details of this modelling.)
Dr Aline Soterroni, a University of Oxford researcher who led the 2023 analysis, tells Carbon Brief that the reversal seen under Lula “shows how quickly deforestation can respond to political will”.
However, she stresses that the modelling of the “no forest code” scenario is “relatively conservative”, with deforestation remaining high but not rising.
Deforestation in this scenario – used here as a proxy for a Bolsonaro election win – is tempered by slower demand growth for Brazilian beef and soy, says Soterroni. She notes that the scenario also does not capture the potential for illegal forest clearing in response to weak governance.
Indeed, some experts anticipated in 2022 that a Bolsonaro victory would send deforestation rates rising to near-record levels.
Claudio Angelo, international policy coordinator at Brazil’s Climate Observatory, tells Carbon Brief that if Bolsonaro had won in 2022, “we have reason to believe [this would have resulted] in much higher rates than during his first term”.
Angelo says the “political signal” would likely have driven an “explosion of wildcat mining” and illegal deforestation in the Amazon. He also points to efforts – including by Flávio Bolsonaro – to formally dismantle the forest code in the Brazilian congress, during Jair Bolsonaro’s first term.
Soterroni notes that deforestation rates did not immediately drop following Lula’s election, as suggested by modelling of a full “forest code compliance” scenario. She says this reflects the “gradual and imperfect process” of restoring and enforcing the law.
Nevertheless, she tells Carbon Brief:
“The key message from our modelling is the contrast between these trajectories: weak environmental governance keeps deforestation substantially higher than full implementation of the forest code. That message remains relevant today.”
Election significance
With Jair Bolsonaro in prison for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election, his son Flávio Bolsonaro, a senator for Rio de Janeiro, is standing against Lula in the upcoming contest for president.
There are 13 candidates, but Flávio Bolsonaro and Lula are by far the frontrunners and are currently neck-and-neck in opinion polls.
If Lula wins, experts say he is likely to continue with the “zero deforestation by 2030” agenda that has already had a pronounced impact on forest loss.
As the chart below shows, periods when Amazon deforestation fell in recent history all occurred during Lula’s three terms as president.
In contrast, experts say Flávio Bolsonaro, a climate sceptic who has indicated he will continue his father’s political agenda and favour agribusiness and mining, will likely drive a surge in deforestation. Angelo tells Carbon Brief:
“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I’ve been saying that Lula’s re-election is the only thing standing between us and a wide destruction of the Amazon.”
A Bolsonaro win would be a “tremendous disaster”, says Dr Patricia Pinho, deputy science director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, adding:
“I don’t think we can afford four years of increasing deforestation [and] violence against Indigenous peoples.”
Dr David Lapola, an ecologist focused on Amazon research at the University of Campinas in Brazil, says he believes deforestation “would certainly rise” and Brazil’s climate and deforestation goals “would be thrown in the trash bin”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“The Bolsonaro administration in the 2019-2022 period showed that the deconstruction of environmental policies and institutes can be done very, very quickly.
“In a matter of a few months, they can destroy what has been constructed over decades of environmental policy and activism in Brazil.”
‘Greenest’ policies
Lula has the “greenest” policy proposals of Brazil’s six top-polling presidential candidates, according to analysis by the Climate Observatory.
The analysis identifies 16 “positive and detailed” environmental commitments in Lula’s proposals, including reaffirming his “zero deforestation by 2030” goal.
Flávio Bolsonaro, on the other hand, has one positive environmental commitment and seven “clearly anti-environmental” proposals.
The right-wing politician has committed to zero “illegal” deforestation by 2029. However, he has also previously led an attempt to change the forest code, opening up large tracts of previously out-of-bounds forest for legal clearance by extractive industries.
Given this, Angelo tells Carbon Brief that he is sceptical about the 2029 pledge.
“The only way you can trust him on this is to think that he is going to revoke the forest code and make all illegal deforestation legal.”
Lula is also the only major candidate to list a clear target for cutting national emissions, sticking with Brazil’s existing goal to cut emissions by 59-67% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels.
Overall, the Climate Observatory notes that climate change and environmental issues “are off the radar for most candidates”, who are instead focusing on the economy and security issues.
Pinho adds that deforestation and the Amazon have not been at the “forefront” of this election, compared to 2022.
If Bolsonaro wins, up to 95% of the Amazon would fall under the leadership of right-wing national governments – including those in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru – reported Mongabay. It noted that presidents in all these nations “explicitly favour agribusiness and mining over environmental conservation”.
If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of Brazil’s election on 4 October, a runoff will take place on 25 October, as has happened at every presidential election since 1998.
Soy moratorium and Brazilian congress
Other factors will also play a role in future deforestation in Brazil, regardless of the next president.
One is the effective end of the Amazon soy moratorium. This is a voluntary agreement signed by companies committing to not buy soya beans grown on land in the Brazilian Amazon that was deforested after 2008.
Conservation organisation WWF’s international director general, Kirsten Schuijt, previously described it as the “most impactful voluntary supply chain policy ever implemented”.
However, major grain traders withdrew from the agreement earlier this year, effectively bringing it to an end. Pinho describes this move as a “huge destruction” of Brazil’s environmental protections.
Research shows the moratorium prevented around 18,000km2 of deforestation in its first decade of operation from 2005-16.
In contrast, a 2026 study estimated that the end of the moratorium could result in 14,000km2 of additional deforestation in the Amazon by 2036.
Alongside choosing a new president on 4 October, Brazilian voters will elect state governors and members of congress, which will also factor into future environmental impacts.
Right-leaning parties, including the far-right Liberal Party linked to the Bolsonaros, currently hold half the seats of the two chambers of congress.
This has led to conflict between lawmakers and Lula. For example, in 2025, congress bypassed Lula’s veto of several aspects of a controversial piece of legislation dubbed the “devastation bill”.
Pinho says that the potential for a right-wing congress and president would be “devastating for the environmental and climate agenda”.
Lapola notes that a Flávio Bolsonaro presidency “would consolidate the view in Brazil that environmental protection is solely a matter of political preference, and not a crucial need of all people”. He adds:
“Land pillage, destruction of precious biodiversity and scorning of Indigenous peoples simply cannot be a nation’s project in the 21st century. We have got to be smarter than that, for sure.”
related
Q&A: What change of power in Colombia could mean for world’s fossil-fuel transition
Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change
COP30: Could Brazil’s ‘Tropical Forest Forever’ fund help tackle climate change?
Guest post: How Caribbean states are shaping climate legislation
The post Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022
This letter is a bit more direct and longer than most of those which I write, but I hope you will be okay with that, because the times seem to call for being plain.
A few weeks ago I got a text message from an old and dear friend —let’s call her Hannah.
I have enough shared life with Hannah that, whenever we talk, the conversation always feels current and effortless, despite gaps of months or even years.
Hannah has been talking with her son — we’ll call him Neil — who is a teenager and doing well in school, but wildly worried about the state of the world, including the imminent trajectory of global warming. Hannah and I don’t text each other other very often, but on this occasion she’s reached out with something visceral:
Neil has challenged me to point him to something hopeful, if I can find it. He says so far no one is showing any will to uphold the Paris Agreement. I am checking in to see how you still manage to have real hope.*
Then, just a few days later, the United Nations Environment Programme Limiting Overshoot report landed, containing the principal finding that it is likely the global temperature will soon exceed 1.5°C.
After that news, and the real time devastation in Nepal, and in the context of the broader state of the world, I found myself having multiple conversations with friends and colleagues about the structure of hope. I want to openly share that after a few of these exchanges, I metaphorically closed the blinds, and wondered how to feel, and what to do, because there is no avoiding the dreadfulness of the news, and what it means for the suffering of people and life on Earth.
But if you are fortunate enough to have time, space and security to do so, then after the darkness, you open the shutters and once again there is light. This is the structure of my innermost resolve.
* * *
Our lives — those of us living on our magnificent earth now — have the greatest possible purpose.
There is virtually no problem that we endlessly clever and creative, human beings cannot solve, when we work together.
And we are not just intelligent and ingenious; we are inherently social, nurturing and brave; capable of the deepest enduring love.
Each of the roughly 12,000 generations of humanity so far has made life possible for those who have followed, through acts of devotion.
Babies have been held and fed. Water and food have been found and shared. Shelter has been built. For 12,000 generations we have held the hands of our children.
Every single one of us was once carried in the arms of another, unable to walk ourselves. It is our thoughtfulness, kindness and care that have seen us through as a species. Sometimes this has been in the most exigent of circumstances, when enough of our ancestors did not give in, faced incredibly difficult things, to somehow make it through.
And so it comes to this. To what we now must do. We must do as 12,000 generations of people did for us.
The struggle to keep global warming to under 1.5 degrees may be over. The battle of return—to get our planet back to safe temperatures at emergency speed and scale — is just beginning. Upon this struggle depends the future of all we care about, and that of all life on Earth. The prospects of the next 12,000 generations are conditioned by our efforts now.
Our work now is to keep the overshoot as low as we can, make it as brief as possible, and do everything within our power to alleviate other pressures on nature. It is to take care of humanity — of one another — in the face of mounting climate and ecological damage. And by these efforts, create the conditions for future flourishing. Every fraction of every degree matters.
What must now be done is hard, much tougher than should have been necessary, because of the vested interests in coal, oil and gas and deforestation, and the failures of decision makers. And while renewable energy has surged, making the case for change much simpler, on the other side of the ledger there’s the reactionary and gangsterist turn of politics and the multiplier effects of wars and mass violence, with the existential destabilisation of big tech looming over all.
There is no sugarcoating the scale of difficulty. But what is necessary remains within our collective power. We must never, for one second, say that returning our planet to flourishing is impossible — many of the obvious solutions already exist; but even where transformation relies on reforms, technologies or capabilities that might sound fanciful, or historical changes that are unprecedented, this can be no barrier to our conviction. After all, much of what we take for granted today as ordinary features of social life, would have been considered impossible by every single generation before us.
The world has not been destroyed by nuclear war; we solved the growing hole in the ozone layer; Antarctica was kept sacrosanct from exploitation. Humanity has collectively triumphed before, and can do so again.
We can find the necessary social and political will to do what is needed because these are endlessly renewable resources. The necessary financial capital exists. Apart from the fossil fuel industry, the greatest barrier we face is to mistakenly concede that what lies before us is insurmountable. It is not.
We must avoid the siren song of fatalism. Because. It. Is. Never. Too. Late.
None of which is to be insensitive to the horrors already unleashed — the deadly and grotesque harm to people, places and species that cannot be undone; or to be blind to the impacts that are coming. But where we have the power to act, we also have the responsibility — and the extraordinary privilege — to do what must be done.
Although she is wounded, our planet is still alive and beautiful beyond all of our comprehension. Hundreds of billions of creatures live and thrive still upon this earth. Nothing has happened until it has happened, and life fights for life. Every beetle, every tree, all the fish in the ocean, the smallest of the geothermal shrimps, the greatest of the whales and the mightiest of the birds — all demand life every second of their existence, so that their species too may have future generations.
No individual has to know how to solve this alone. Indeed, finding some detachment and humility is essential to concentrate on the role that each of us can play.
Hope is not merely a mindset or a story we tell ourselves. Collective power is not abstract; it is what we do, together, applying ourselves to the practical mechanics of change and contestation within society, by being part of the organisations and networks of people that are dedicated to effective strategies. It is why I am so committed to Greenpeace.
Working from without and within, there are opportunities to make rapid change within institutions, governments, businesses and communities to create the social, economic and political momentum for emissions reduction at speed and scale, reminding ourselves always of what remains possible, even if it hasn’t happened yet.
We can return the planet to safer temperatures. We can put technologies back in the service of people and life. We can return to the assumptions that seemed so obvious just one generation ago — that it is both possible, and our obligation, to build a better future for all people, and for life on Earth.
I did write back to Hannah and Neil, to say honestly to a treasured friend and her son, that yes, as a matter of faith, conviction, evidence and strategy, absolutely there is real hope. And this is a pledge not just to Neil and his generation, but to the next 12,000.
Together, we have the power. Together, we cross this bridge through the dark. To secure an Earth capable of nurturing life in all of its magnificent diversity.
We did not choose to carry this historic responsibility, but here we are. And it is so lucky that we are here.
I wouldn’t choose any other time to be here, alive on Earth, with you.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19